Iraq War Vet: "We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us"

reply to post by grimreaper797

Do you think that sending Troops into Afghanistan and Iraq was a mistake?
If so? WHEN did you arrive at that judgment?

reply to post by grimreaper797

If you think you are such an authority on urban combat, go fight the war yourselves and end it for us. If you are such experts on what should happen here, what should happen there, what should happen now and then, etc. etc. go fight the war and end it.

The thing is, most people here don't believe there should be a war going on. Those who do are programmed beyond belief into following their leader and letting the multi billion dollar corporations dictate their lives for them. It's funny because in the end, those same people who are complacent about the atrocities and even instigate them will be the same ones who will be wondering what is happening when their reality is presented to them. So yeah, let's end it and not fight.

Originally posted by Kailassa
I don't like what rapists do.

However that does not mean I'm going to become a rapist to show them how to do it better.

Minus 10 points for an inability to follow logic.

If I build a house and you complain "this house is terrible" then build a better one. If you don't like the job somebody is doing you have two options:
1. Do the job yourself, raise the bar. Bring a higher level of professionalism and work ethic to the occupation.
2. Shut up and stop complaining because you are adding zero value.

Hey, maybe there is a third option where you could come up with a better solution than war and dissolve the problematic situation diplomatically, but I doubt it. Becoming a political diplomat isn't easy work and lets face it, if you were really interested in becoming a diplomat or a key figure in politics, you wouldn't be on ATS.

So I think options 1 and 2 are pretty valid. You are complaining about something which you could easily get up and take steps to becoming part of the solution, but you don't.

I know you probably have the impulse to go "this is what a forum is for, to voice our opinions and...blah blah blah" so be it. But let me remind you that no where in this thread have a seen anything constructive added in ways to avoid these situations SPECIFICALLY, or attempts to diffuse these situations before they arise. I saw a couple people going "oh but the rules of engagement need to be modified and more strictly followed". Really? Why don't you go read through the rules of engagement, participate in the war, and then maybe you can be an authority on what adjustments need to be made in them.

Until then, you are a civilian, sitting at a computer, far from any combat zone, and don't really know jack about combat situations or at what point does the situation require engagement. You simply don't have a clue. I'll admit I don't have a clue about whether or not the rules of engagement are suffice, and whether they need to be stricter (or more strictly followed), but I'm not the one complaining about their deficiencies.

Point blank, if you think there is a problem, try to solve it, become part of the solution, or stop wasting time complaining about it fruitlessly.

And you think critics of this wholesale rape of Iraq and Afghanistan should sign up to help you rape these countries more efficiently?

So what have you done recently to stop the wholesale rape of these countries?

[edit on 9-4-2010 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by dalek
reply to post by Reign02

 

It's ironic that you refer to fear mongering, considering that the airwaves and the Bush administration was happily pumping the fear mongering message out right after 911, a message that took a lot of the misguided happily down the road to war.

Ok and all these crazy conspiracy theorists aren't doing the same thing..... Think about it. Yea Bush did use those tactics and he was a not so bright Prez, but still people think that the US is up to some grand scheme, when it is the people on the net trying to turn everyone against us. I have been on both sides of this, people have to come to their own conclusions and I respect what others think and feel, but most of you don't look at it from both sides. You hear government and you instantly think they are out to get you. We could go back and forth for ages, but the truth remains that some things will never be found, and never be proved. So I just suggest everyone to take a look at the other side of the fence once and awhile and you might realize that we are actually helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yea we are probably doing it for our best intrest but at the same time they were ruled by tyrants and terrorist oragnizations. Sadaam murdered and executed women, children, and anyone he thought was suspect. Afganistan was ruled by terrorists that we supplied and we trained. They took advantage of this a began to rule by using scare tactics and killing anyone who stood in their way. Now the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are getting a taste of whatever life they want to live. They are no longer scared to seek whatever kind of job they choose. Yea I admit that we probably went over there for oil, to set up shop in the middle east to help out Israel if needed, and to prevent further attacks on innocent civilians. But you know what, there is nothing we can do about us being there, it is already to late.
When I was in Iraq I would always meet these group of children outside one of our ECPs and bring them soccer balls, candy, water, gatorade and anything else I could find. Surprisingly they spoke pretty good english and loved the fact that they could live their lifes without fear. So believe it or not but most of them do appreciate that we are helping them.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by Portugoal

So I'm waiting, any volunteers? Who thinks they can handle it all so much better?

Hello,
I will totally lead the troops back home. Give me the authority, and I'll make it so.

I'll place our troops all along the borders to put an end to illegal immigration, and drug trafficking.

I'll make the entire military go home on leave every two weeks, rotating so that our borders, and national interests are maintained and protected. That's just for starters.

Then I will bring a military tribunal to question the former administration, after which, the same for current administration.

Then I will EO all the compartmentalized/alphabet agencies to cease and desist. TSA will protect American soil, not check if the pants are soiled. This will be cumbersome, I know...

Then I will make State reps/and congress work for a more realistic public-serviceman salary, like $40,000 a year. If they think they are above that, they can go peddle shoes in Africa, and S. America. Atleast then they will be doing some good. And while passing laws, they are simplified and passed by the public voting without representation, other than by, and for themselves.

I'll EO the disclosure of all hidden secrets I deem of not interfering with national security. I could go-on for days, but I'm not a fascist/tyrant/dictaster.

[edit on (4/8/1010 by loveguy]

Originally posted by dalek
Do you think that sending Troops into Afghanistan and Iraq was a mistake?
If so? WHEN did you arrive at that judgment?

If you are relatively new at snowboarding, and decided to go down a Black Diamond slope, most people would agree, you have a made a terrible error. Unfortunately the error is made. Now do you:
1. close your eyes and pretend you didn't just make that mistake
2. bail out and hope you break as few bones as possible as you tumble down to the bottom
3. realize you have gotten in over your head, identify the situation you are in, and utilize what you already know to try and resolve this mistake to the best of your ability

Unfortunately, I knew we made a mistake going into Iraq almost instantaneously. Partially because we were preoccupied in Afghanistan (which I don't believe was a mistake to this day), and partially because Iraq was being invaded for all the wrong reasons. What is even more unfortunate was the fact that once more and more people realized we made an error, they picked option one. They just pretended that we didn't make a mistake and stubbornly pushed forward as if nothing was wrong and just added to the problems.

Some people want to bail out, and continue to call for the US to bail out on its wars. This is just putting a mistake on a mistake. Simply bailing out as we fly down that hill is an impulse that will only result in broken bones.

We need to choose option 3 and start coming up with solutions.

I don't yet have a solution for ending these wars, but I am also not complaining about the current actions which we engage in, and have engaged in over the previous years. I do know they are inefficient and problematic, but I also realize I do not have a better alternative so I have no place to complain about them.

The moment I hear a reasonable, sensible, logical solution to the problems we are facing in Afghanistan and Iraq, that is when I will start to complain that such solutions should be implemented, but not until then.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by dalek
reply to post by grimreaper797

 

Do you think that sending Troops into Afghanistan and Iraq was a mistake?
If so? WHEN did you arrive at that judgment?

I want to take a shot at this...


before i start though, i need to explain that i think in different levels of reality. I am a pacifist, for the most part, and don't like any aggression. But i can also think on the reality of the common human mind, and understand how war works and appreciate it for what it is: horrible, but part of humanity.

having said that, i think we should never have invaded any nation. but, on the reality of common human understanding, we were justified for entering Afghanistan They were harboring the "bad guys".

Iraq should have been invaded long before, for failing to comply with UN sanctions. They had fired repeatedlyl at US jets patrolling the "No Fly Zones". And there was the whole "oil for food" thing. If the UN wasn't going to follow through, it should not castrate the rest of the world by levelling hollow sanctions.

Once we were in Afghanistan, however, there is no way we should have entered into another war. I cannot believe that any field commander would do such a folly.

Originally posted by jackflap
The thing is, most people here don't believe there should be a war going on. Those who do are programmed beyond belief into following their leader and letting the multi billion dollar corporations dictate their lives for them. It's funny because in the end, those same people who are complacent about the atrocities and even instigate them will be the same ones who will be wondering what is happening when their reality is presented to them. So yeah, let's end it and not fight.

I respect that. I am not somebody who thinks if you don't support the war, or any war for that matter, that you are some how wrong and inferior, thus you should cease and desist from talking or existing.

What I will say is that far too often the people complaining give no logical, reasonable alternative to the problems. They simply refuse to acknowledge them, and that is unacceptable.

Facts, there are terrorists. Are there super terrorists? No, not in my mind at least. There isn't some alliance of super terrorists, all genius masterminds of diabolical plans, plotting to destroy us day in and day out. I do think there are men, raised in simplistic oppressive societies, which result in them become simplistic oppressive men, with oppressive aggressive tendencies. When that comes together, you get these people who wish to oppress others. To them, WE are the others. In their simplistic oppressive aggressive minds, they find physical violence to be the most effective way of dealing with us.

Terrorism really isn't as complex as made out to be. There are people who are oppressive, simplistic, violent, aggressive, and overcompensate for their own insecurities in self value and viewpoints. Hell, I'm sure you've met one before, they are called bullies. The only difference between a bully and a terrorist is a terrorist is more radical than a bully and a terrorist is motivated by religion or politics.

The best way I can say this to you is that if you think it is wrong, come up with a better solution. If you can do it yourself, go to a meeting with people of like-minded goals and brainstorm alternatives. If you all collectively can't figure out anything better, take that group and meet up with a like minded group. Keep working at it till you do find a solution. When you do find one, or a few, COMPLAIN. Complain and complain till every single individual has heard it.

Think of it as a sales pitch. If your sales pitch isn't strong, the company competing with you (war mongers) will tear it apart and you'll be back to square one. Finding a solution isn't about what makes you happy and what you think, as an individual would be a good idea. Finding a solution is about coming up with idea, and being so persuasive and tactical with its proposed implementation, that there isn't any objection strong enough to overcome/outweigh it. If you can do that, the people will buy your product (call for its implementation) and the war will end.



But I don't see that. I see some bloggers on the internet complaining without any solutions, and most likely, no effort towards coming up with any/ attending any groups with such a goal. That isn't direct toward you either, but a general assessment of what I have seen, and partly the reason that even though I have been a member for 5 and a half years, with over 4 thousand posts, in the last 2 and a half years I have made less than 1 thousand posts. It is for that very reason. I realized what I was doing was complaining about things, without any solutions. Now I mostly read posts, for no other purpose than to maybe provoke some thoughts for solutions to the problems other people are seeing.

Occasionally though, I read a thread like this. It is so full of complaints and bashing of one side or that other, and nothing that can be remotely construed as some possible idea of an alternative solution, that I feel compelled to point out that ridiculousness of what is going on in said thread.

6 pages of complaining without a single shot in the dark as to how things could be done any differently, in even the slightest aspect, is definitely ridiculous.

reply to post by grimreaper797


The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were planned a long time ago. We didn't go in there on a whim. It may seem so to the public, but that perception is wrong. It is vital to National Security that we are there and protect the future pipelines and oil fields. I hear that the poppy fields are also growing nicely ...

If we wanted to we could take option #3 and stop the war machine tomorrow. If you don't think that's possible you've been listening to the MSM too long my friend. These two countries managed without us for centuries and will do so after we are gone.

reply to post by grimreaper797

6 pages of complaining without a single shot in the dark as to how things could be done any differently, in even the slightest aspect, is definitely ridiculous.

Thank you for the reply, that was a good one! The thing is, people feel as though they were lied to. About nine eleven and we all definitely know we were lied to about Iraq. So what we need is the truth first. Which is going to be all but impossible to get to. There are groups who are working on getting the truth out. It just seems like an up hill battle.

There are dangerous people that would like nothing better than to destroy us you are right. They were lied to as well and are under the same oppressive programming techniques. It's like we need a light switch to go on in everyone's head at once. Everyone needs to put down the weapons and ask what in the world are we doing to eachother?

Far be it from anyone in a position of power to call a press conference and say something like that. It wouldn't happen. They make too much money off us killing eachother. It gets frustrating and that is why you see so much complaining and not a lot of alternate theories. It's the little box we have been put in. Thank you again for taking the time to reply as you did.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Them managing without us is not the point. If you think our nation can be self sufficient in this day and age, you are wrong. There is no better way to put it than wrong. Can the United States, maintain itself as the leader in technology, civil rights, and general prosperity, by itself as an isolationist nation? No it can't. Can it maintain that leadership role in multiple long standing wars? No it can't.

Neither one of those is a viable longer term option. Going to war with every nation indefinitely will lead to our demise. Will we disappear, no. Will we become just another nation, who only has a say because we have nuclear weapons? Yes.

Becoming isolationist will only result in the same demise, different path to getting there. Let not tip toe around the facts of this matter. The US spends more on "national defense" than any other nation, by far. You know what that means, our bark has bite.

If we tell china, "Taiwan is an independent nation, you aren't annexing them" china can't just annex them anyway, because our bark has real bite to it. We have far too many ways, alone, without any other nations support, to cause many legitimate and some devastating problems for china to ignore us.

The only reason we have such bite is because our non-isolationist policies that ended during the second world war. To I agree with perpetual states of war, no way, because it can bankrupt a nation. Do I believe isolationist policies can destroy a nation just the same? Yes. If you don't, you simply don't pay attention well enough to the dynamic systems of politics and economics at a world stage.

Could we end all the war tomorrow, logistically sure. If we were to ignore all long term consequences of doing such, all would be fine and dandy, for a short time at least. Then the blow back of our actions would come back to haunt us.

That's why the average person usually can't be trusted with policy making. They don't have a mind frame capable of thinking in the long term, accounting for dynamic systems our government function in, and the ever changing problems that stem from such systems. The plans people come up with are too simplistic and rigid and fail quickly in application, which I'm going to point out when responding to another poster in my next post.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

AS a veteran this is why I support an across the board military draft, People wouldn’t be so quick to send their kids off to war if they knew their children would see it...

I have saw the horrors of war, but sides (in Iraq) did terrible things, It won’t end unless we say we have had enough.

When you look at Photos and Advertsing done for the Military, it comes across as being Fun and an Adventure.

But when you see Photos from WW1 and a lesser extent WW2, those photos really showed the horrors of War. If people were shown these pictures, I'm sure nobody join up.

The few videos capturing the Military in action, their attitude is more like Video Game than a war. Maybe that's the Fun and Adventure bit.

And at the end of the day it's all for what?, what is the point of staying in Iraq?

Originally posted by OverSword
Again.... before you judge the apache pilot please check the following page.
mypetjawa.mu.nu...

I’ll ask you the same thing I asked in another thread on the topic…
Since when is it US policy to continue to double tap the wounded until they stop moving?
Since when is it US policy to fire on those rescuing or treating the wounded?

These are the types of activities that I expect to see in WWII movies being done by the Axis Powers, I certainly never thought I would see our troops engage in such things.

Originally posted by loveguy
Hello,
I will totally lead the troops back home. Give me the authority, and I'll make it so.

Who is stopping you from working your way to a position of authority to change any one of the things you are listing below?

And do not give me a cop out about the powers that be, or the media. If you haven't TRIED, my point will remain. I mean legitimately try, not attend a town meeting and decide "they are holding me down". If you put forth a reasonable effort, who is stopping you? Yourself. I will explain how in the following responses to your ideas.

I'll place our troops all along the borders to put an end to illegal immigration, and drug trafficking.

That is a rather broad plan. How do you plan to organize these troops in such a way to stop the tunnels being made under the security fences. How do you plan to organize such troops to be more effective in the actual act of stopping these acts of illegal immigration and drug trafficking? In other words, what means do you plan to use to stop them physically. Guns? If they resist, what will be the rules of engagement for illegal aliens.

What amount of force will be necessary to stopping these acts? As in, what amount of forces number wise?

Will this be a federal funded effort or a state funded effort? Or will it be jointly funded? If it is federally funded, what tax flow will you be using to fund it? How much of the budget will be needed at a federal level to suffice? (continuing off of the tax flow) How will we get the money for such without creating a deficit or raising taxes?(keep in mind you can't take money from the wars you will be ending as that is money we are spending which doesn't exist, a key problem which has to be dealt with) If you raise taxes, which taxes will you raise, and why?
If this is a state funded effort, will only the states on the boarder be paying for it? What taxes will pay for this? How will you avoid creating a massive tax burden on the people in these states so that they don't move to another state to avoid the high taxing? How will you deal with the social backlash of the people in such states saying how unfair it is that they are getting taxed for something everyone is benefiting from? What force will be used at the state level regarding the numbers needed to suffice in ensuring the security of the boarder?

I'm sure I can come up with more longer term questions if need be, these are just the short term questions about your plan that came up in my mind as I was typing them out.

I'll make the entire military go home on leave every two weeks, rotating so that our borders, and national interests are maintained and protected. That's just for starters.

You plan to rotate the military every two weeks.
How do you plan to account for the costs that will arise from the constant transportation of massive amounts of troops every two weeks? Where will this influx in money come from? How do you plan on ensuring our interests abroad? How will you handle the logistics of transporting people across the country or abroad with some many people being constantly rotated? This includes not only the people being rotated at the boarder, but people in the navy who are on ships, operating them. How will you handle rotation of jobs that require people to be out there for prolonged periods on time (longer than two weeks)? How will you implement this policy without effecting productivity and efficiency as a result of the constant rotations? As in, every two weeks, work has to be stopped, wait for new rotation to come in, and get everyone up to speed on where the previous group left off, and then in two weeks time (less than two weeks time, because of the time it will take to do these things) restart the entire process all over again. How will you deal with the psychological problems that result in some soldiers from a constant instability in lifestyle? Going from two weeks of intense military life, to two weeks of normal life, then back to military life again. This instability in life schedule, for a variety of reason, will cause extra stress for whoever is involved. How will you deal with the backlash from people who say that soldiers constant rotation is wasted money and that throughout history soldiers, overall, have gone much longer time on tours, and dealt with it well?

Again these are just the immediate question I can think of, and none of them deal with the longer term issues that result from such a plan being implemented.

Then I will bring a military tribunal to question the former administration, after which, the same for current administration.

How will you deal with the people asking why are American citizens being tried by military tribunals and not in regular courts? How will you deal with the people outraged over the fact that these policies that were enacted, were policies that a fairly large group of people agreed with and called for? How will you respond to this group of people without alienating them and their beliefs, causing a tear in the unity of our nation? What will you charge them with? Then why? What happens if you find them guilty, when many of the things they did were given the go ahead by the people who elected them? This all stems back to how do you find them guilty and punish them without alienating and provoking the rather large group of citizens who agreed and authorized such actions? How will you justify a public representative being punished for following the voice of the people he or she represents?

Again, just immediate question I could think of.

Then I will EO all the compartmentalized/alphabet agencies to cease and desist. TSA will protect American soil, not check if the pants are soiled. This will be cumbersome, I know...

How will you ensure that people are not avoiding federal taxation without the IRS? How will you make up for the lost funds if you cannot ensure such? How can you deal with interstate crimes without the FBI? How will you deal with the massive amount of illegal immigrants already in this country without INS? How will you deal with the illegal immigrants that get in after this move? How will you ensure the safety of food without the USDA?

Actually I am going to stop right here. The reason being?
www.usa.gov...

Go through that list and find solutions to how you are going to deal with the backlash of each and every one of those departments being taken out. I warn you, it is a VERY long list.

Then I will make State reps/and congress work for a more realistic public-serviceman salary, like $40,000 a year. If they think they are above that, they can go peddle shoes in Africa, and S. America. Atleast then they will be doing some good.

How much money will be saved from this move? How will the representative that are NOT millionaires be able to survive off of these wages while having to complete with the millionaires trying to take their spots?

And while passing laws, they are simplified and passed by the public voting without representation, other than by, and for themselves.

You opened a REAL can of worms here that I bet you won't be expecting.

When will these voting sessions be held? How will you deal with the convenience factor resulting from it? How will you maintain their security when they are constantly be used? How will you deal with the cost of maintaining their security over long periods of time? What taxes will pay for this and how? How do we deal with issues that need urgent decision making? How do we deal with complex issues that the vast majority of people are not qualified to be considered informed upon? How do you plan to explain to people that they will often be expected to make decisions about things that they neither have all the information on to make an informed decision upon, don't have the experience to interpret such information, and those that don't have the intelligence to understand the basic concepts and ramifications that such decisions have? How do we avoid over-expenditures when it comes to budgeting and deficits, if people are not informed enough on the situations dealing with such? How do you plan to deal with people that refuse to learn about these situations, but vote anyway, uninformed? How do you plan to explain to people that you expect them to become (essentially) experts in every field that the government is dealing in, so that they can even begin to understand the ramifications of the decisions they make when they vote? How do you plan to simplify laws without making them vague and open to loopholes and exploitation? What happens if people still cannot understand these simplified laws? What do you plan to do if business start ad campaigns demonizing or pushing a certain laws capitalizing on peoples lack of understanding or lack of information about said law? How will you plan to deal with such without restricting the first amendment right of free speech?

I could go on and on and on when it comes to direct democracy. I'll give you a big head start. Direct democracies are terrible ideas, and our forefathers warned against them constantly. Our forefather essentially said, direct democracy is one of the most dangerous forms of government. Their reasons were sound then, and make even more sense today.

I'll EO the disclosure of all hidden secrets I deem of not interfering with national security. I could go-on for days, but I'm not a fascist/tyrant/dictaster.

How do you determine what is or isn't a threat to national security? How do we avoid other nations using such secrets to gain the heads up on us and beat us out in technology races and other areas? How would revealing these secrets benefit our nation as a whole, aside from satisfying the curiosity of some?

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by OverSword
Again.... before you judge the apache pilot please check the following page.
mypetjawa.mu.nu...

I’ll ask you the same thing I asked in another thread on the topic…
Since when is it US policy to continue to double tap the wounded until they stop moving?
Since when is it US policy to fire on those rescuing or treating the wounded?

These are the types of activities that I expect to see in WWII movies being done by the Axis Powers, I certainly never thought I would see our troops engage in such things.

what the hell are you talking about double tapping? Double tapping is shooting a person twice. Of course you shoot a guy twice, I've put five rounds in a guy clearing a building. You fire to eliminate the threat. You should him on the ground to until he is dead.

They are illegal combatants so the Geneva convention does not apply to them. None of the insurgents are marked as medics and a van doesn't count as an ambulance. He was correct to light up van because they thought it was an enemy rescuing his buddies.

You know insurgent snipers purposely targeted our corpsman. They also detonated secondary IEDs on the rescue personal trying to save Marines in a burning Humvee hit with an IED. That is one of the tactics of the taliban and terrorists in Iraq.

You only treat wounded enemies when there is no threat left. You be the moron who leaves a guy wounded while still fighting and watch him smoke your dumb ass.

In world war 2 Marines had possum squads who went around shooting wounded Japanese in the head.

The soldiers and Marines in WW2 were a lot more brutal than the guys of today. Not much information came out of the two wars and a lot was pure propaganda. The Soviets just killed every surrendering German. The Allies were just as bad if not worse than the axis.

You need to do a little bit more research.

reply to post by defcon5


I'll only just add

Since when is it US policy to kill anything that moves

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by eikmun

 

The reality of the situation? Give it a rest. The reality of the situation is these pilots acted prematurely and murdered innocent civillians and high fived and congratulated each other after doing it. That's the most disgusting thing about the entire video in my opinion. Nice shooting as if it's a video game.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

If you read my post you would understand you are 100% wrong. I tired of trying to educate people here. Keep bawwwing with the sheep.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

AS a veteran this is why I support an across the board military draft, People wouldn’t be so quick to send their kids off to war if they knew their children would see it...

I have saw the horrors of war, but sides (in Iraq) did terrible things, It won’t end unless we say we have had enough.

Except it isn't the people that decide to go to war. The only thing a draft would accomplish is giving those in power more gas to add to the fire.

Originally posted by jackflap
Thank you for the reply, that was a good one! The thing is, people feel as though they were lied to. About nine eleven and we all definitely know we were lied to about Iraq. So what we need is the truth first. Which is going to be all but impossible to get to. There are groups who are working on getting the truth out. It just seems like an up hill battle.

Appreciated. Were we lied to, sure. Were people in our government lied to? Yes. Not everyone in our government knew all the information, or knows all the information to this day.

But in reality, that doesn't matter. If the government as a whole came out tomorrow and said "We lied to you, we invaded on false pretenses." that would certainly make us feel better, but not because it would change anything or make the situation better. You know what it would do? Exonerate us. It would say "General population, it is not your fault, you are not responsible." and really that is what so many people what to hear. It has nothing to do with the justice of truth and what really happened. They just want to know this whole screw up isn't their fault. They want to tell themselves that they couldn't have known and that going along with it was the best choice they could have made at the time.

It's all about people feeling better about their own screw ups. That is all. Think about it. What would change, when it comes to the situation, if we found out we were lied to about why we went to Iraq? I don't mean who would be held responsible or go to jail.

We have a two front war, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which we are deeply involved in. Their governments are still dependent upon us for protection from opposing groups looking to take power. Instability in the region would lead to massive casualties from skirmish wars and eventually full blown wars which hopefully would not spread into wider regions (though likely)? Pent up hostility between multiple groups, with difference they find large enough to murder each other over. A variety of other complex issues in the region which could and probably would spiral out of control if we simply left.

What about that changes by knowing we were lied to? Nothing.

It is true, that we learn from the past, but only in application to our own way of living and our OWN future mistakes. It is true we can only learn from the past if we know the truth of our past. A key point though, is that these instances in which we were lied to, have no connection to the problems we are facing abroad, and provide us with no new solutions to those problems.

I want to know the truth as much as you, so that those mistakes don't happen again; but make no mistake, they have no connection to the mistakes made in the middle east, aside from the fact we used those lies to get involved. Knowing we shouldn't have been involved doesn't make us any less involved.

There are dangerous people that would like nothing better than to destroy us you are right. They were lied to as well and are under the same oppressive programming techniques. It's like we need a light switch to go on in everyone's head at once. Everyone needs to put down the weapons and ask what in the world are we doing to eachother?

Only in a perfect world...or in a world where you (as an individual or group) can create a more convincing technique. You must have solutions that are undeniable logically. That is the only light switch you will ever have, reason.

Far be it from anyone in a position of power to call a press conference and say something like that. It wouldn't happen. They make too much money off us killing eachother. It gets frustrating and that is why you see so much complaining and not a lot of alternate theories. It's the little box we have been put in. Thank you again for taking the time to reply as you did.

It isn't even that (though they do make tons of money off death and destruction). Nobody is going to make that press conference because no solution is offered. You can't just point out the obvious. You need to come up with ideas that make everyone happy. If you don't they will pick their guns back up and fight. You can't just say "why can't we all get along?" because they will respond with all their problems, and if you fail to address them in the slightest they will go back to fighting, and next time they will be less prone to listen to you.

The problem is so many people have said "why can't we get along?" and when confronted with the countless issues, they just don't have answers. Then they are viewed as ignorant. And to be completely honest, I would have to agree.

When you ask that question "why can't we get along?" you essentially reveal how little you know about the situation. These people are killing each other senselessly, obviously they already have reasons in their mind why they can't get along, and if you don't know them, you better learn them and figure out some solutions before confronting them or you will look like a fool.

For every conflict there is a reason or reasons why they are fighting, however illogical. Learn about them. Don't ask questions like "why can't we all get along?" learn why they aren't getting along and start to say things like "Can we all get along if... *solution here*" only then will your voice not fall on deaf ears. Even if your solution wasn't necessarily good enough to stop the fighting, they will listen again next time you come around because you are putting forth an idea, and not just an empty plea to stop.

you all cannot just simply attack the US military as a whole. Thats like saying all cops are bad just cuz one bad cop tazed an old lady or took a bribe. Alot of these young boys are unguided, uneducated, and naive. To their surprise, if they were educated in basic law and ROE they can LAWFULLY disobey an unlawful order. US servicemen take an oath to the constitution, not their military leaders or government. However, these boys need guidance and taught some basic rights. Some, if not most, feel they have lost all rights as citizens once they are signed over to the military. WRONG. They have rights and can win if they educate themselves with basic info on their rights and laws. They need take responsibility for their actions and know when to say no.

As far as the tales of woe, about the lady with the groceries, that is very sad. BUT, these boys are WIRED and on edge. They run on hardly, if any, sleep, bullets and bombs going off in every direction, watching their friends blow up and die, children and women blowing themselves up just to kill a few servicemen. Civilians AND insurgents alike could not be trusted. When your in such an environment, YOU see how well you keep your cool. Everyone is so quick to judge. This whole fiasco with Wikileaks is interesting and brings up valid points. However, regardless of how interesting it may be it comes at a conveniently right time when some military officials, including top officials, are starting to second guess and refuse orders from the Fed and Obama himself.

I smell smear campaign....